Top 30 All-time Greats: Hopkins grains grounds

Duran isn't a good comparison, Duran was only 29 in the Leonard rematch, pretty much in his prime 5months after 1 of his career best performances. He was 30 when he was shut out by Benitez, 31 when outboxed by Laing, the past prime wins Moore came at 32 and Barkley at 37. Jones didn't lose properly until 35, but has past prime wins over Prime Tarver, incidently a better win than BHOPs has at LHW and Ruiz came at the age of 34. Hopkins has kept going on picking up wins over good but not great opponents into his 46th year, which is an amazing battle with age in its own right

The better comparison would be Charles and Moore. Charles has the greater wins, better prime, head to head dominance but Moore the much greater longevity as Charles became a gatekeeper past his own prime

 

and i look on your vcash and it's on 75 ?
why not 0 ? because they give the 75 for free for anyone who hit the 0.
and one can ask himself , how cum u hit the 0 ?
i think your p4p list will give a part of the answer for it.
which leads me to ask :
did you post it already ?
and btw , i forgot to put gavillan , greb , fitzsimmons , zivic , stribling , loughran etc in it , maybe next time i will .

 

and gave castro 2 distance fights splitting the verdict

 

Duran is a good point of reference for what I was saying about Jones and Hopkins. They all had a pretty formidable prime, fought bigger men (Jones still edges Hopkins here) and really distinguished themselves, and as they aged they dropped decisions (Hopkins looks considerably better here).

Their respective ages is less important because fighters don't devolve at the same rate (to wit, Jones and Hopkins) and you also have to factor in number of fights. Duran's fading at 30 is eerily like guys from the 20s thru the 40s who had well over 100 bouts.

 

:think Good question.. And your right fans are hypocrites(im one of them) in counting great wins for old fighters but not counting losses.

 

Yeah, really..

 

Actually Duran did and was robbed in their first fight.

 

I credit Hopkins, and give him props for beating a much younger opponent and at his age..but if you want to single out someones opposition as being **** poor..Hopkins has benefitted by fighting smaller and for the most part, subpar opposition...none more subpar than this turkey Pascal..one of the worst "champions" I've ever seen...both Jones and Hopkins have been very fortunate to have competed in an age of mediocrity. I know that he has many detractors, and gets dumped on because of his style, but Chad Dawson is going to be a stark contrast to all the secon raters that Hopkins has fought, and will soundly beat and retire ol' BHop when and a big "if" they ever get into the ring.

 

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

 

Fantastic avatar you have there...I'd love to find where you got it from and see other work by the same artist.

 

What we can all agree is that he deserves a mention. And once again he has one, in this Bernard Hopkins thread.

 

Knowing when to retire certainly factors.

Had jones retired after beating tarver noone would ever question him because they'd have no reason to.

They'd rightly say he should have fought jackson, benn and dm, but they'd only ever have immaculate footage of him against stellar opposition.

Like floyd now, he can retire and have a decent enough atg standing whilst failing to meet some top opposition. However if he loses 7 of his next twelve he'll certainly drop in any lists.

Fortunately for charles his losses after being hw champ where against top heavies of the day in walcot, rocky, layne and was it valdes? All were close aside from the two stoppages.

Anything after rocky has to be discounted because he was significantly past prime and was also failing to maintain any contender status.

A big difference is what can be done past prime. Charles was fighting past his best outside of his best weight and still had enough success to be a top atg heavy.

Retiring at the right time won't improve any rankings but it will stop them falling.

Let's say for instance floyd has now done enough to be top 50, a series of losses would drop that ranking. But retiring now he'd still be top 50.

All this is a reply to seamus btw.

 

http://connect.in.com/charley-burley/images.html

 

:thumbsupThank you sir!!

 

And surprisingly, this time it wasn't from you.